My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[LogicTech]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

Imagine, if the Gore AGW wonder drug goes wrong........would'nt a lot of people wonder why there was no due diligence done .....snake oil salesman.

I still hav'nt got an exact answer to my question - If the sun was turned off/disapeared, how long would it take for the Earth to cool down to an average of zero degrees celsius. Seems an easy question of those with a complete understanding of climate

What does that have to do with anything related to AGW?

Trouble is the REAL WORLD (thats where I live) is getting cooler - the temperature is not going up like the "hockey stick" graph claimed it would. I want to see some due diligence done before we go off on some economy destroying fancy.

Among my many debates with so-called global warming "skeptics" (oh, how I hate how they refer themselves as one since they clearly are not...), this is by far the most common "rebuttal". It's getting quite old too


Global warming refers only to the rise in average global temperatures, not localized events. The atmospheric temperature of the Earth has risen by over 1 C over the past 120 years, and is predicted to rise by alot more this century (3-5 C). And they correlate so strongly with CO2 data that it is just plain silly to believe that it couldn't be the cause.

[LogicTech]

Originally Posted by Eclipse Now

I'm personally looking forward to our fine land leaving fossil fuels, especially oil, for clean, green electrons. Then we'll finally be free of our cancer causing, climate changing, economically vulnerable oil dependency and moving into the "electron transport economy" so that we'll never be impacted by oil shocks or have to "bring democracy" to another oil exporting nation ever again.

We have been procrastinating on making the big switch for over 150 years now. So the real question is, when will we finally have the will to move on...

I can't seem to post the link, but I'll try anyways: www1 eere energy gov solar pdfs solar_timeline pdf

Just put the appropriate periods and other marks in place

[Flying Binghi]

Aparently CO2 is the cause of all evil. Heres a very relavent clip of just a few of the claims (to cover all would take many hours)

YouTube - Global Warming Causes More Sex

And one wonders why more and more people are getting sceptical.

A couple of interesting graphs at the end of the clip.

[Flying Binghi]

What does that have to do with anything related to AGW?

What does due diligence have to do with anything....

Among my many debates with so-called global warming "skeptics"

I am a firm believer that the climate does, and is always changing. I dont know of anybody who doubts it. LogicTech, perhaps you can provide a link to a climate change skeptic site/article. Put the word "Anthropogenic" in with a reference to CO2, and it will be a large number of links.

[Flying Binghi]

I doubt you’ll ever get an exact answer to this question, because the conditions it describes are so unlikely to ever occur that it’s of little importance.

However, it’s not hard to arrive at a reasonable approximation. Rephrasing the question from speaking of average temperature, which is problematic to define and measure, to the temperature of a tropical island such as one of the Hawaiian islands, we can take the daytime high (about 30 C) and drop in temperature that normally occurs when the sun “turns off” there over roughly a 12 hour period each night (5 to 10 C) to reach an estimate of 72 to 36 hours (30•12÷5 to 30•12÷10). Noting that nearly all (99.978%) of the Earth’s power comes from the Sun (ie: Earth’s power budget), that there’s not much difference between 273 and 303 K, and that atmospheric heat travels much more slowly than the Earth rotates, we can reasonably ignore other sources of power, non-linear temperature effects, and day/night heat transfer for an approximation of this order. Because 30 to 0 C is within the normal range of temperatures on Earth, we can ignore the possibility of significant phase transition effects.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying Binghi
Seems an easy question of those with a complete understanding of climate

The question is not a climate question, because the sun being turned off or disappearing is not within the realm of reasonably likely climate-effecting occurrences. Though interesting and easy, it requires no knowledge of climate beyond the data above and assumptions above. In short, it can be answered by a simple and reasonable extension of empirical data.

CraigD, it is a theoretical question to see if their is any real understanding of the Earths climate.

Your estimate is 72 to 36 hours ?

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

Aparently CO2 is the cause of all evil. Heres a very relavent clip of just a few of the claims (to cover all would take many hours)

YouTube - Global Warming Causes More Sex

And one wonders why more and more people are getting sceptical.

A couple of interesting graphs at the end of the clip.

FB, that is a comedy, a 'mockumentary' if you will.
How about a serious claim not some comedy?

[Eclipse Now]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

What does due diligence have to do with anything....

You see darling boy, "due diligence" is exactly what is missing from the sceptics. "Due diligence" involves admitting all the data, following empirical methods, and contributing to the peer review process. That's science.

See, in "the world in which I live" there is a discipline to science and rules to observe. We don't blame serious climate scientists for silly newspaper reports and poor journalism. We don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, and the baby in this situation is objectivity. We don't ignore serious data because, in that famous phrase of Pauline Hanson, "I don't like it".

I am a firm believer that the climate does, and is always changing.

So are the climatologists. Don't try to claim any special unique status in this, or that it means more than it does... climate changes for a variety of reasons, and both natural Co2 variations in the "long carbon cycle" and unnatural Co2 variations are important forcings. Milankovitch cycles are another important forcing, but far longer term and not something that concerns us at this stage. There are many, many forcings, and guess what? I don't think you understand how small a range in Co2 variation can interact with and influence other forcings.

I'll just point out that I you replied pretty much exactly as I predicted in post 1017. However, you still haven't done your homework FB.

Quote:
Now, again, if you feel GW due to CO2 is 'bunk' then you must believe either:
A) CO2 does not absorb long wavelength radiation (heat)
B) CO2 doesn't absorb the amount of long wavelength radiation chemists and physisists calculate it does.
C) CO2 isn't increasing year to year

This really is the root foundation of GW. Knock one of those out and you debunk GW. So, which one is it? (or feel free to mention another if I missed it)

[engineerdude]

[quote=Eclipse Now;247737]

I don't think you understand how small a range in Co2 variation can interact with and influence other forcings.

Well, I'd be willing to bet money that you and the global-warming people don't "understand how CO2 variation can interact with and influence other forcings" either. No one does. There is no "grand equation" published yet for how the earth's climate works. People speculate, postulate, make computer models, and no one can still tell me if it's going to rain tomorrow with any kind of accuracy.

We on the "AGW is crap" side think that, since there is essentially zero CO2 in our atmosphere, it probably has no measurable effect on climate. AGW people think otherwise. Time will tell.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

We on the "AGW is crap" side think that, since there is essentially zero CO2 in our atmosphere...

My. That sure explains a lot!

Could you explain what the AGW-is-crap folks think the atmosphere does contain?

Our greatest pretenses are built up not to hide the evil and the ugly in us, but our emptiness. The hardest thing to hide is something that is not there,
Buffy

[Essay]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

...the global-warming people don't "understand how CO2 variation can interact with and influence other forcings" either. No one does. There is no "grand equation" published yet for how the earth's climate works. People speculate, postulate, make computer models, ...
We on the "AGW is crap" side think that, since there is essentially zero CO2 in our atmosphere, it probably has no measurable effect on climate. AGW people think otherwise. Time will tell.

Review: Earth’s Energy Budget Terminology

Originally Posted by www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks....

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students...01s54/lec7.ppt
Sunlight warms the earth’s surface only during the day, whereas the surface constantly emits infrared radiation upward during the day and at night. (a) Near the surface without water vapor, CO2, and other greenhouse gases, the earth’s surface would constantly emit infrared radiation (IR) energy; incoming energy from the sun would be equal to outgoing IR energy from the earth’s surface. Since the earth would receive no IR energy from its lower atmosphere (no atmospheric greenhouse effect), the earth’s average surface temperature would be a frigid –18°C (0°F). (b)With greenhouse gases, the earth’s surface receives energy from the sun and infrared energy from its atmosphere. Incoming energy still equals outgoing energy, but the added IR energy from the greenhouse gases raises the earth’s average surface temperature about 33°C, to a comfortable 15°C (59°F).

...
...a comfortable 59°F... before that balance with outgoing energy (due mostly to water vapor) is achieved.

Edude,
Do you "believe" this part of the story?

This is the basic introductory lesson on the theory of Earth's climate, at any university in the world.

There could be better wording, or more details on which heat is doing what in various parts of the atmosphere, but the basic idea is the same across the board.
Do you think this stuff is right?

Thanks,
~